AUSTRALIANS AT WAR

THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Friday, December 29, 2006

Over at Webdiary, Will Howard wants to know who Bob Wall is accusing of being ‘dishonest and abusive’ and who Bob Wall is saying is a “…self-confessed apologist for Israel”.[1] The choice is between Will Howard and Geoff Pahoff; one is one and one is the other. But which one is which?

Now this is a really tough one! Both are apologists for Israel’s disgraceful behaviour and both are dishonest and abusive. But let’s try and whittle it down.

The disgusting and outrageously callous Pahoff is famed for his comments regarding the death of an elderly Islamic spiritual leader who was murdered by the Israeli government:

“I celebrated wildly when that filthy bag of puss, ‘the old blind wheel-chair bound spiritual leader’ finally kissed what was left of his miserable fanny and did the world the enormous favour, albeit somewhat forced, of departing from it for all eternity. Thereby correcting a major anomaly in the order of things by being born in the first place. Or not drowned slowly at the first opportunity. The slimy ignorant lying slice of toxic shit.”[2]

Pahoff makes it perfectly clear where he stands with regard to Israel’s criminal actions.

There are numerous posts here at this blog (just do a search for ‘Will Howard’ on this blog) which document his lies and deceit. There is, for example, his classic piece of hoodwinking at Webdiary where he asserted that the Jaffee Institute for Strategic Studies, an Israeli think-tank staffed with ex-IDF senior officers and ex-Israeli intelligence officers was ‘non-partisan’ in its deliberations about Iran and its so-called nuclear ambitions. There are, of course, many other proven instances of his lies.

Will Howard is the most apalling liar and deciever so the upshot is, as I said; both are ‘dishonest and abusive’ and both are ‘Israeli apologists’.

Paul Gray, the Australian neoconservative and neo-fascist who supports illegally invading nations based on lies and who continues to support the notion that the West should violently foist Western-style ‘democracy’ on to peoples with total disregard as to whether they actually want it or not, has now come out and said by inference that the Australian Broadcasting Commission, sometimes known as ‘Aunty’, should be more anti-Islam. The title of his piece in The Australian says it all: ‘Aunty’s anti-Western bias is a dangerous political tool: Ignorant and ideologically biased ABC staff need re-educating’.[1]

The reality is that ABC staff generally are able to demonstrate that they are the least ignorant of most of Australia’s TV current affairs programs commentators and interviewers and are, moreover, able to provide the most analytical coverage of world events, something the commercial stations are unable to do. As for ‘ideological bias’, if by that Gray means that the bias is against war, lies, Western state-terrorism, invasion of sovereign nations that are not a threat to the rest of the world, is biased against nations colonising lands that aren’t theirs or interfering and intervening in the affairs of other nations governments because ‘we’ think our way is somehow better than ‘theirs’, then so the ABC should remain bias. One has only to read Gray’s article to realise that the alternative as Gray would wish it is anti-Islam, pro war and the imposition of so-called Western democracy by force upon the Islamic world. War, war and more war.

How’s this for arrogance: “…the problem reveals itself as coming from the same source: the spiritual and metaphysical rootlessness of the tertiary-educated Australian middle class.I have always contended that dealing with this problem at its roots will require nothing less than the complete philosophical re-education of those ABC staff members engaged in intellectual tasks.”

‘The complete philosophical re-education?!’ One has to ask; to what? Fascism is the only alternative this arrogant hypocritical warmonger has in mind.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Just a quick one today about a couple of stories that caught my eye in The New York Times that summed up once again the arrogance and hypocrisy that underscores the US and their allies attitude towards the nations they have invaded and now occupy. The first article is headlined: ‘U.S. Says Captured Iranians Can Be Linked to Attacks’[1] in which it says:

“The American military said Tuesday that it had credible evidence linking Iranians and their Iraqi associates, detained here in raids last week, to criminal activities, including attacks against American forces. Evidence also emerged that some detainees had been involved in shipments of weapons to illegal armed groups in Iraq.”

First off, they are only ‘illegal’ as far as the US and their Iraqi puppets are concerned. Never mind, however, that the US and the Coalition of the Killing’s invasion of Iraq was itself illegal and that, therefore, they are in Iraq illegally themselves and that the killing they have undertaken since the invasion is also illegal. And why shouldn’t Middle East nations become allies in order to defeat a common enemy that has invaded one and threatened another – the Americans forget that it is they that are the foreigners in a country that doesn’t want them there.

The second article is headlined ‘Iran Is Seeking More Influence in Afghanistan’.[2] The hypocrisy here is exposed with this paragraph:

“The rise of Hezbollah, with Iran's support, has demonstrated the extent of Tehran's sway in Lebanon, and the American toppling of Saddam Hussein has allowed it to expand its influence in Iraq. Iran has been making inroads into Afghanistan, as well. During the tumultuous 1980s and '90s, Iran shipped money and arms to groups fighting first the Soviet occupation and later the Taliban government. But since the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban in 2001, Iran has taken advantage of the central government's weakness to pursue a more nuanced strategy: part reconstruction, part education and part propaganda.”

The Americans it seems are arrogant enough to forget that Afghanistan is Iran’s neighbour and the construction work they do in Afghanistan is far more welcome than the destruction the Americans seem only to bring. And, again, why should the people of Lebanon not look to Iran for support in order to defeat their common enemies; the US and right-wing Israeli Zionism. After all, does not the US ship arms and money to Israel?

One day the Americans are going to wake up and realise that they have nothing to offer the people of the Middle East or anywhere else they go if all they bring with them is death and destruction accompanied by their arrogance and hypocrisy.

Thursday, December 21, 2006

In The Australian on 19 December 2006, Owen Harries, a noted Australian neoconservative, asks what the future of the Bush doctrine will be. “Does failure on its first outing spell an early grave for it? Does it mean that it will have been but a passing episode in the history of US foreign policy? As 9/11 recedes into history, and as George W. Bush’s period in office draws to an end, are we witnessing the end of what the Bush doctrine stood for?” [1]

Given the lies that were told that initiated the invasion of Iraq, the horrendous loss of life since (over half a million dead and rising daily), the anarchy that now exists in Iraq and through much of the Middle East, the squalor that the Iraqi people now have to endure, the squandering of billions of dollars of taxpayers money (predominately the American taxpayer), the thousands of dead and injured American soldiers, the continued threat of more war against other Middle East nations such as Iran, Syria and possibly even Saudi Arabia, it would be nice to think that the answer to Owen Harries questions would be a resounding ‘Yes!’

Unfortunately, according to Harries, it is unlikely to be. “Not necessarily”, Harries proclaims, “For the doctrine represents two enduring and fundamental features of the situation - one structural, the other cultural - that will not disappear when the Iraq venture ends: the global hegemony of the US and American exceptionalism.”

Fortunately for the rest of the world Harries is wrong. Time and again American hegemony has proved ultimately to have been an illusion and the concept of ‘American exceptionalism’ is nothing more than arrogant wishful thinking that exists only in the minds of neoconservatives who seem to think that the ‘American Way’ is the answer to all of the worlds woes based on the historical experience that America itself has evolved from. (We’ll come back to that ridiculous furphy in a moment.)

That’s not to say, of course, that American hegemony doesn’t exist; just that it is very much overrated particularly in the context that Harries assumes.

One often reads of the US as being the only ‘superpower’ left (after the demise of the USSR) but in reality other superpowers are still around; ones that the US would not want to tangle with such as Russia and China. If hegemony means influence, then, yes, the US has lots of it. There are many nations around the world that ‘benefit’ from American ‘influence’ – especially economically. But when it comes to military grunt most nations these days realise that the US is not all it’s cracked up to be and Iraq is a classic example.

While the US has had its successes militarily over very small nations (like Grenada, Panama, etc.), it has, despite its military might, been unable to prevail in many of the conflicts it has been involved in directly since WWII. Despite terrible losses on both sides, North Korea still exists. Despite supporting an invasion of a small Caribbean island on its doorstep, Fidel Castro’s Cuba still exists. Despite the deaths of over 50,000 American and allied soldiers and well over a million or two others dead, Vietnam is still a communist nation. And, regardless of what the neoconservatives would have the world believe, America did not actually defeat the USSR in the ‘Cold War’ – it was simply able to survive longer; the bottom line is: the US did not militarily prevail over the USSR and to suggest otherwise is purely delusional.

And now we have Iraq. In a nutshell it was the neoconservative’s faith in the illusion of US military hegemony combined with their belief in the myth of American exceptionalism that has been America’s downfall in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s ‘shock and awe’ turned out to be fizzer. America’s technical military know-how with laser-guided bombs and missiles fired from the most sophisticated aircraft has failed to subdue a people that simply do not want the Americans there and are living in an Iraq that is now far, far worse than it was when Saddam was in power.[2] The Americans are now in a situation where they cannot win unless they use overwhelming firepower across virtually the entire nation which would entail the deaths of extremely large numbers of innocent Iraqis as it did when the Americans tried (and failed) a similar stunt on a smaller scale at Fallujah.[3]

For all its military might the US has rarely been able to prevail against its enemies using its military might. America’s hegemony comes not from its military might, as the neoconservatives would like the world to think, or even as they would like to think themselves as demonstrated in the Project for the New American Century’s (PNAC) Statement of Principles[4], but from its ability to fork out huge amounts of money (or, alternatively, withhold huge amounts of money) in order to affect an outcome favourable to them.

In the present circumstances, it may well be that the Bush administration will, indeed, attempt a final fling at a military victory but if it does, it will be in the face of a backlash of very negative public opinion not just from the rest of the world but also from most of the American people who have now had about a gutful of this ridiculous war. And this will especially be so if such a final fling results in huge loss of life – Iraqis or Americans – and even more so still if all it ends up doing is inflaming an even greater insurgency.

As for the myth of American exceptionalism; this is based solely on neoconservative arrogance, hypocrisy and self-righteousness. It is the projection of an American sense of superiority arrived at by having undergone a transition in history that no other nation has, so they think, endured and one which they believe all other nations should aspire to. Rings a bell? The Romans? Napoleon? The Germans during the Nazi era?

Harries says:

“American exceptionalism, the strange term used to identify the profound belief widely held by Americans since their beginning as a nation that it is their historical - indeed their divinely ordained - destiny to be, in the words of Reinhold Niebuhr, "tutors of mankind in its pilgrimage to perfection", or in the words of president Woodrow Wilson, that Americans are divinely "chosen to show the nations of the world how they shall walk in the paths of liberty". However condescending and presumptuous others may find this conviction, it is deeply held and as natural to Americans as apple pie. It will certainly survive the Iraq experience and the demise of the neo-conservatives, who are merely its latest vehicle, not its inventors.”

Contrary to what Harries asserts, while American exceptionalism may not have actually been invented by neoconservatives per se (the term was first coined by that hero of the neocons, Alexis de Tocqueville in 1831) it certainly has been brought to the forefront of neoconservative and US foreign policy as a direct result of neoconservative propaganda particularly since that other neoconservative hero, Seymour Martin Lipset, wrote his book about it, entitled ‘American Exceptionalism: A Double Edged-Sword’ in 1997.[5] Neoconservatism, most certainly in the modern context, has been the vehicle by which ‘American exceptionalism’ has been promoted and, certainly, one would hope that with the demise of neoconservative influence in US foreign policy in the wake of the fiasco that is Iraq, the ridiculous notion of ‘American exceptionalism’ will also be seen to expire.

American pre-eminence is now on the wane and it is on the wane as a direct result of the neoconservatives pushing what they believed was American hegemony beyond the bounds that the rest of the world, particularly the Islamic world, will accept. The notion of American exceptionalism sums up all that the Islamic world, and much of the rest of the world beside, believes are the real values of Americanism – arrogance and hypocrisy. Hopefully, when neoconservatism has run its course, the values that the rest of the world associate with them will pass on with them.

Monday, December 18, 2006

Not content with having got the US to start a war against a sovereign nation that was not a threat to the US, the Jewish-American-led neoconservatives, whose allegiances lean heavily towards Israel’s interests, are now pushing for the US to commit more of its soldiers to fight and die in Iraq in a last ditch effort to purge Iraq of the enemies of Zionist Israel.

The neoconservative Weekly Standard reports[1] that members of one of the numerous neoconservative think-tank front organisations, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), have recently come up with a ‘plan’ that they claim will solve all of the problems the US are currently experiencing in Iraq. The plan, ‘Choosing Victory: A plan for success in Iraq’,[2] written by neoconservative ‘strategist’ Frederick W. Kagan, son of Donald Kagan and brother of Robert Kagan, up there among the most influential of Israeli-American neoconservative families along with the Kristol’s and the Podhoretz’s, and written in conjunction with advice from retired army General Jack Keane, calls for some 50,000 more troops whose “…initial mission would be to secure and hold the mixed Baghdad neighbourhoods of Shia and Sunni residents where most of the violence occurs.” One can only imagine the death and destruction such a ‘mission’ would entail as the US create ‘Fallujah’ style massacres[3] in Baghdad.

Then, after securing Baghdad, there would be, according to the report, a “…full-scale drive to pacify the Sunni-majority Anbar province.” ‘Pacify’, of course, is a neocon euphemism for killing, as the plan calls for a final effort to purge the already stricken nation of resistance to US and Israeli hegemony in the region.

Fred Barnes asserts in his Weekly Standard article that the plan is “…one that is likely to be implemented” by President Bush.

The neocons it seems aren’t quite finished yet. One can only hope that cooler heads within the US administration will prevail thus preventing yet another US instigated bloodbath in a nation that surely has already seen enough blood spilled on all sides in order to satisfy the lust of the Zionist-American neocons and their right-wing Zionist allies in Israel.

Friday, December 15, 2006

I usually know when I’m getting close to the mark with any assertion I make about Israeli operations in the occupied territories regardless of whether they are overt or covert or any assertion I make that is inconsistent with neoconservative ideology; the Israeli Loony Lobby apologists react by jumping up and down shouting ‘conspiracy theory’ and questioning my intellectual integrity.

In short, they protesteth too much.

In fact, its got to the point now where, if I don’t get a reaction, I wonder about whether I’m right or not!

In recent times a fascist/neoconservative, Dylan Kissane, has taken to making comments in response to some of my postings. Most of them I have left published but lately I have deleted comments because they were simply propaganda comments pushing his own fascist/neoconservative garbage and, since he now has his own blog, I will not allow him to use this blog to spew his fascist views.

In typical fascist/neoconservative fashion Kissane has taken to distorting the contents of my postings.

For example; in a post titled ‘A response to a right-wing pro-Israeli Zionist who uses the ‘Holocaust’ as a propaganda tool to defend right-wing Zionism’ I stated:

“…the word ‘Holocaust’ is one that has all but been usurped by right-wing Zionists to symbolize the horrors that were committed on Jews by the Nazis whereas in reality the Jews were not the Nazis only victims; many, many others died alongside Jews in camps that were designed for exterminating all sorts of peoples besides Jews.”[1]

In response Kissane deliberately and dishonestly distorted what I had written saying:

“That's right: the Holocaust is not about the destruction of the Jewish people in Europe.”[2]

Yet that is not what I said. I have stated that it was indeed about the destruction of the Jewish people in Europe but adding that there were many, many others as well that perished in the Holocaust.

With regard to Israeli operations in the occupied territories, my most recent post suggested strongly that there could well be more to the recent deliberate killings of children than mistaken identity within inter-factional fighting among the Palestinians saying that the Israelis have form[3] for this kind of false-flag operation whereby they, usually Mossad or its agents, commit some heinous crime and make it look as though someone else was responsible in order to create trouble between entities whether they are nations, political groups or rival individuals. Kissane reacted vehemently shouting ‘Conspiracy theory!’ and carrying on about how terrible it was that Hamas should do such things. If, indeed, it was Hamas then, yes, it is terrible. The problem is there wasn’t a peep from Kissane when the Israeli terrorist forces in the Gaza opened fire into innocent men, women and children, not a peep.

Kissane has no honesty or integrity left. He has become as deceitful and dishonest as the other warmongering lying Israeli Loony Lobbyists here in Australia.

Neocons reacting vehemently and dishonestly are a fairly typical neoconservative characteristic when one is getting close to the truth.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

It is becoming increasingly clear that the recent deliberate shooting deaths of the three children of a Palestinian Fatah official were something more than just a culmination of a series of deadly tit-for-tat factional incidents between Hamas and Fatah in the complex world of Palestinian politics.[1]

The circumstantial evidence is pointing to ‘agent provocateurs’ as having been more likely responsible for these totally senseless killings. Since the targets were the children of a Fatah officer, the knee-jerk reaction was to blame Fatah’s rivals, Hamas. Naturally, Hamas denied it. However, Hamas have not just left it as a simple denial; they have emphatically denied and have also firmly condemned the killings.[2] Giving weight to Hamas’ denials is the fact that, while there is indeed some factional violence between Hamas and Fatah, neither side have ever been known to resort to deliberately killing the children of each others operatives.

And deliberate the killings were since it was well known that the children were always driven to school in a different car from the one their father used plus the fact that the killings took place at the school. The reality is that the killers had made no mistake about their intended targets.[3]

Clearly the killings were specifically designed to provoke already inflamed tensions between Hamas and Fatah and the only beneficiaries of this outcome would have been Israel as they continue in their classic ‘divide and rule’ campaign among the Palestinians. While the Palestinian factions argue among themselves as to who was responsible for the killings, the real culprits would by now be in a safe haven inside Israel.

Mossad, the Israeli intelligence organisation, have a long history of running false flag operations and this particular type of operation is not without precedent.[4] Israeli forces also have a long history of deliberately targeting children generally in the occupied territories including the killing of children by Israeli snipers.[5]

There would be no benefit at all to Hamas for killing the children of Fatah officers. There could only be the promise of retaliation which would mean the killing of more children which is not something either side would benefit from.

While there is no direct evidence to say that Israel’s Mossad was responsible, there is no doubt that the circumstantial evidence is enough for the finger of at least strong suspicion to be pointed in their general direction.

Friday, December 08, 2006

“… Iran, as an individual country, has no valid claim against Israel. Israel does not occupy one square inch of Iranian territory. Israel has never fired a shot at Iran. Israel has never disputed Iran's legitimacy as a state, questioned its right to exist, or called for the Iranian regime to be "wiped from the pages of history." Iran is also not an Arab nation, so certainly cannot claim some grievance against Israel as part of some sort of Arab "unity." (For example, Iran is not a member of the Arab League).”[1]

Will Howard ignores entirely that it is Israel that is calling for Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program to be destroyed. He ignores entirely that Israel’s greatest ally and benefactor, the US, has, as a direct result of pressure from Jewish-American neoconservatives who form the Israeli Lobby in the US, named Iran as part of an ‘Axis of Evil’. It was even Jewish-American neoconservatives that came up with the phrase ‘Axis of Evil’.[2]

Iran, contrary to Will Howard’s lies and attempt to deceive, has every good reason to posture strongly against Israel; it has seen what has happened to that other nation that was named part of the ‘Axis of Evil’ by Israel and the US – Iraq.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Will Howard at Webdiary is still pushing the lie that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. In a recent posting at Webdiary he starts by saying: “Another point about the Iran nuclear confrontation…”

One first needs to ask: What ‘Iran nuclear confrontation’? Iran has not confronted anyone with anything nuclear. The only people doing any ‘confronting’ are the Israelis and the neoconservatives in the US – both of whom do have nuclear weapons.

Will Howard goes on to say: “The US, UK, France, China, and Russia could reduce their stocks of nukes, and agree on a Central Asia/Mideast nuke-free zone.” What garbage! If these countries reduced their nuclear weapon stocks by 90% they’d still be able to destroy the planet a couple of times over. And, as far as the Middle East is concerned, the only Middle East nation that has nuclear weapons is Israel and they are hardly likely to relinquish their weapons to create a nuclear free zone.

Will Howard continues by saying: “I think the people who are really scared of a nuclear-armed Iran, are not so much the Israelis, but Arab powers like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.” [1] More garbage. As I have mentioned before, this tactic of wedging is typical Israeli Lobby practice. The reality, however, is that none of the Middle East nations need be scared of a nuclear-armed Iran because Iran is not nuclear-armed and nor is their any evidence whatsoever to suggest that it is intending to become so – except in the neocons and Israel’s propaganda-inspired imagination.

Elsewhere on another Webdiary post Will Howard has pedantically argued that the Shebaa Farms are not a part of Lebanon[2] and that, therefore, Israel is not on Lebanese land. He all but ignores the fact that, while who owns the land might well be in dispute, who doesn’t own the land is not in dispute – and that, of course, is Israel, yet they are the ones that are occupying the Shebaa Farms.

In the same post Will Howard asks sarcastically: “So why didn't the peace-loving Hezbollah at least give the UN a chance to reinvestigate the sovereignty of Shebaa Farms before launching Katyusha’s on "disputed" Zionist-occupied areas such as Safed?” The entire question is an attempt to obfuscate by inferring that somehow Hezbollah had attacked Israel because of the Shebaa Farms being occupied by the Israelis.

Safed[3] is nowhere near the Shebaa farms for a starters. And Hezbollah attacked towns like Safed in an effort to deter the Israelis from destroying Lebanon. Will Howard should be reminded that Israel had planned and launched its attack on Lebanon before Hezbollah retaliated with rockets.

Monday, December 04, 2006

It seems that as well as labelling Will Howard a ‘liar’ and ‘deceiver’, I can now add ‘manipulator’. Trying to wedge left-wing commentators is an Israeli Lobby speciality that has been tried before and is often used as simply a distractive tactic to avoid a focus on some other lie or deceit that would have otherwise befallen them or that they have been caught out on.

Unfortunately it doesn’t work as far as I’m concerned. Roslyn Ross has a political view that I support wholeheartedly. Since the debate is not about me I have no interest in what Roslyn Ross or anyone else personally thinks about me.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever about calling a liar a liar and I will continue to expose Will Howard for the liar, deceiver and now manipulator, that he is.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Over at Webdiary I note that the liar and deceiver Will Howard is trying to deny that Israeli Zionofascist troops in the Gaza, West Bank and other occupied territories have targeted children.[1]

There is abundant evidence available that shows that children have been targeted both indiscriminately and deliberately by Israeli terrorists operating in the various occupied territories for years.[2] Some have even been shot in the head by Israeli terrorist snipers – you can’t get any more deliberate than that.

Will Howard is a liar and deceiver; always has been and always will be. Judging from the email I get, most people at Webdiary and elsewhere on the net are now fully aware of this disgusting person’s lies and deceits in his efforts to deny the undeniable and defend the indefensible of Israeli atrocities and war crimes.

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, have consistently lied to the Australian people and to the world about the extent to which they had committed Australia to Bush’s invasion of Iraq prior to the actual invasion in March 2003.[1] The Howard government, right up until almost the actual invasion date, had denied that they had committed Australia to this disastrous and criminal adventure. But now their lies are coming back to haunt them.

Just two days after Alexander Downer had haughtily told the ABC’s Lateline program[2] that the notion that Australia had committed itself to Bush’s invasion of Iraq prior to the days just before the actual invasion were just ‘conspiracy theories’, an ex-SAS officer has come forward to tell the world that the Australian SAS were committed to involvement by at least mid-2002 thus putting the lie to Downer and Howard’s insistence that their decision to go to war was not made until just days before the actual invasion.[3]

This comes on top of revelations that the former chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, Trevor Flugge, had been told by Australia’s then ambassador to the UN, John Dauth, that the ‘Howard government would participate in military action with the US to overthrow Saddam Hussein’ in early 2002. This directly contradicts Howard’s ‘previous statements that Australia had not agreed to join the war in Iraq before the UN debate in late 2002 and early 2003.’[4]

Friday, November 24, 2006

It seems that the sleazy pseudo intellectual Will Howard over at Webdiary is practising his lies and deceit once again. This time Webdiarist Phil Kendall has stumbled upon the way Will Howard purveys his deceit. Will Howard claims he is not an Israeli apologist and not an Israeli Lobbyist in the sense that Mearsheimer and Walt classically describe the Israeli Lobby, which Will Howard blatantly insists does not exist – a deceit in itself.

Despite his denials however, Will Howard has consistently argued vigorously (albeit unsuccessfully) for the right-wing Zionist Israeli position, which indeed is the lobby that Mearsheimer and Walt refer to. Perhaps Will Howard is labouring under the delusion that the Israeli Lobby is some kind of formalised organisation of Diaspora Jews outside of Israel that barrack for the right-wing Zionist Israelis in whatever country they happen to be in; in Will Howard’s case, Australia.

He says that he is an Australian citizen as though this somehow provides a moral fence which provides him with the cover of just being a commentator rather than being an Israeli Lobbyist. Yet more deceit. Citizenship of a country other than Israel hasn’t stopped the likes of Joshua Muravchik or Max Boot or Michael Ledeen or Douglas Feith or Elliot Abrams or William Kristol or John Podhoretz, et al, all of whom are American citizens, from being part of the Israeli Lobby. And citizenship of Australia hasn’t stopped Will Howard either from being part of the Israeli Lobby.

Will Howard can deny being an Israeli Lobbyist until he is blue in the face. All he is succeeding in doing is demonstrating the length to which he is prepared to practice his disgusting deceit and lies.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

A US pre-emptive attack on Iran is out of the question now, but will Israel start war on its own hoping that the US will support them once war is underway?

The signals coming out of Israel over the last few days with regard to it’s position on Iran have become clear and almost explicit – Israel is gearing up to make a pre-emptive attack against Iran, and possibly Syria.

The recent demise of Republican power in Congress after the mid-term elections and the recommendations of the influential Iraq Study Group[1] under the co-chair of James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton about having both Iran and Syria involved in negotiations to find a resolution to the turmoil in Iraq, has all but ruled out the US being involved in any pre-emptive attack against Iran. However, it would not preclude US involvement if the Israelis were to instigate an attack to which Iran retaliates with an attack on both Israeli and US interests in the Gulf or if Israel asks for US assistance if, say, Iran attacked the Israeli homeland with missiles.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the press on board his jet as he was on his way to the US that “…Iran must understand that if they do not accept the request of the international community, they’re going to pay dearly.” An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, is reported to have responded: “If Israel takes such a stupid step and attacks, the answer of Iran and its Revolutionary Guard will be rapid, firm and destructive and it will be given in a few seconds.”[2] Such a ‘rapid, firm and destructive’ response would undoubtedly draw the US into the conflict.

On Monday, 13 November, Olmert met with Bush for 50 minutes of private talk as well as other talks with their senior staff present. Bush spouted his usual rhetoric after the talks saying that Iran should ‘give up its nuclear ambitions’, that the ‘world should unite with one common voice’ and that Iran should be ‘isolated if it does not respond’ and that there would be ‘economic isolation’. But, while Bush fell short of threatening to take military steps to stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, Olmert was less conciliatory saying: “ Iran needs to understand that there will be consequences for not agreeing to a compromise”, adding ominously that: “I can’t say what the consequences will be…”[3] Olmert went on to say that he was willing to give the idea of talks between Iran and the US on the subject of uranium enrichment a go but, since Iran is unlikely to give up its enrichment program, Israel will not be holding its breath on the outcome of such talks.

In other indicators of Israel’s impatience to bring on the final confrontation with Iran, Tzipi Livni, Israel’s Foreign Minister, also visiting the US, told an audience of the United Jewish Communities General Assembly in Los Angeles that Iran was less than two years away from reaching what she termed the ‘point of no return’, a point, she said, where Iran did not actually have nuclear weapons but where Iran no longer needed outside help in order to produce a nuclear weapon. She added, however, “Iran denies the Holocaust and seeks the weapons to perpetrate one. If the promise of ‘Never Again’ supersedes the price of oil then the time for international indifference and hesitation in the face of the Iranian threat has long passed.”[4]

The Israeli military is also making noises about being prepared for ‘full-scale war’ against both Iran and Syria. An Israeli military official has said that: “The challenge from Iran and Syria is now top of the Israeli defense agenda, higher than the Palestinian one.”[5]

It is now all but impossible for Bush to be part of a pre-emptive attack on Iran, but the changed circumstances in the US now leaves Israel, knowing the US are no longer able to act, free to take matters in to their own hands.

If Olmert and Livni have received the assurances they need from Bush that, if push comes to shove the US will come to the Israelis aid once they have got their war underway, then one need ask not so much ‘if’ Israel will attack Iran but ‘when’.

Friday, November 10, 2006

A perspective from Dr. David Palmer, Senior Lecturer in American Studies at Flinders University, South Australia, who says:

“Perhaps, but very unlikely.

This time Hezbollah will not take the IDF bait. Furthermore, neither Syria nor Iran will permit it (though Hezbollah in Lebanon is hardly an extension of either of those two countries - simply a recipient of aid and arms from them, with loyalties). Syria in particular will focus on its historic self-interest - Lebanon and Gollan Heights. Iran will focus on its interests in Iraq with the Shia majority there. Gaza is an afterthought to these powers, in reality. It is a symbol of oppression, but not strategic to either country - and Hezbollah has enough on its hands to retain popularity and influence in Lebanon, putting pragmatism above ideology.

The "war" between Israel and Hamas is in fact more akin to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising - one side conducting massacres on a population living in an open air prison, the other side trying to respond however ineffectively to defend itself - while the world watches on doing nothing.

Major conservatives - including Gates (now head of Defense) - in the US have gone on record advocating the consideration of discussions with Syria and Iran - in complete conflict with neo-cons (and Rumsfeld / Cheney among the conservatives). This will reinforce this focus for Syria and Iran - they want talks, not a war (despite Iran's rhetoric). The result will be that the Palestinians - once again - will be on their own - and others in the region are not going to sacrifice on their behalf.

Cheney can say what he wants. Given the Democratic control of both houses of Congress now, and Gates moving into Defense, he is increasingly a man with lots to say but less and less real power. Gates and the generals will make sure of it. And Cheney's base in State Dept. is diplomatic - without real power in the current administration (as both Powell learned and Rice is learning). Power in the current administration - in terms of foreign policy - now - after last Tuesday - emanates from two sources: economic (Treasury) and military (Defense). Both Cabinet positions are now held by hardcore pragmatists / conservatives who have no time for neo-con nonsense. Both accepted their posts with the proviso that they could operate completely independently (e.g. Paulson now has total control over trade talks / relations with China, and did not campaign for Republicans in the last election - sanctions here have become the key weapon of choice also; Gates will have same autonomy, being able to coordinate all military and intelligence operations as he chooses - and he will get the generals onside to push his new agenda).

Cheney, who, according to Jim Lobe, “lies isolated and exposed”[1] could well become a dangerous man if he is tempted to opt for the Presidency in the light of the defeat of the neoconservatives and ultra-nationalists in the mid-terms and the resignation of his man Rumsfeld from the Department of Defence.

There is, of course, only one way that Cheney could ever become President between now and the next election short of an impeachment of Bush. And it’s not as though the neoconservatives haven’t pondered the idea of a ‘President Cheney’ themselves.[2]

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Last month I asked: ‘Are Israeli actions in the Gaza designed to provoke war with Iran?’[1] In it I suggested that Israel were deliberately trying to provoke war with Hamas by attacking the Palestinians in the Gaza. Yesterday, after their criminal tank attack on the sleeping townsfolk in Beit Hanoun that has resulted in the death of some 18 Palestinians, including 8 children and 6 women, Hamas have finally said that enough is enough and have called for retaliation to protect the people of the Gaza.[2]

A full-on war between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza will likely bring in Hizbollah in support of Hamas. The previously tried but failed domino of escalation to bring Iran in to the conflict via Hizbollah, Syria and the US in order to bring on the ‘final showdown’ could well be attempted again.

In Colorado Springs last Saturday, Vice-President Dick Cheney told his audience that the administration would continue “full steam ahead” with its Iraq policy regardless of yesterday’s election results.[3] This arrogance not only clearly indicates that the administration is not in the slightest bit interested in the now expressed wishes of the American people but also demonstrates that the administrations ‘full steam ahead’ Iraq policy in all likelihood refers also to the administrations entire Middle East policy which ultimately includes confrontation with Iran.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

I reproduce below a post I sent to a predominately right-wing Australian website. I do so in the hope that it attracts more readers here than it does there.The post was in response to a post written by Mike Lyvers, an extreme right-wing pro-Israeli Zionist, that, in part, read: “…[Roslyn] Ross [a Webdiary commentator in Australia] has questioned the Holocaust, denied that Jews were its primary victims, and made other blatantly anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi style assertions about Jews that had little or nothing to do with Israel.”

I wrote in response:

“Lyvers, I’ve read Roslyn Ross’s posts and I don’t recall seeing anything that she wrote that came anywhere near anti-Semitism or Holocaust denial.

You assert that she ‘denies’ that Jews were the Holocaust’s primary victims. First, if the ‘Holocaust’ is taken to mean the destruction and extermination of all peoples that were an enemy of Nazism, then she is correct. Few people realise what Hitler and the Nazis had in store for the ‘Slavic’ races had he prevailed in his war against Eastern Europe and Russia. The destruction of the Jewish peoples of Europe was merely a part of Hitler’s overall plan and would have paled compared with the slaughter planned in Eastern Europe and Russia.

Secondly, the word ‘Holocaust’ is one that has all but been usurped by right-wing Zionists to symbolize the horrors that were committed on Jews by the Nazis whereas in reality the Jews were not the Nazis only victims; many, many others died alongside Jews in camps that were designed for exterminating all sorts of peoples besides Jews.

You’ll find if you re-read Ross’s posts carefully that there is no anti-Semitism and there is no Holocaust denial. There is only the realignment of historical perspective that more accurately reflects the objective reality of events that over the years have been distorted by the subjective nature of historic sentimentality – a sentimentality that has been abused ever since by certain Zionist elements who now use the ‘Holocaust’ as a propaganda tool to defend against anti right-wing Zionism.”

Monday, October 30, 2006

Does anyone remember the worldwide furore that was created when, in 1954, Pope Pius XII said: “How many young girls there are who see nothing wrong in following certain shameless styles like so many sheep. They would certainly blush with shame if they could know the impression they make, and the feelings they evoke, in those who see them.”[1]

So, one needs to ask, why has the Australian Islamic cleric Taj Din al-Hilali’s outburst about the way women dress hogged the headlines in Australia and, indeed, around much of the Western world for the last couple of days?

Could it have something to do with the fact that he is a Muslim? Could it have something to do with the fact that he is the most senior Muslim in a John Howard-dominated anti-Muslim Australia who has riled the West with his pro-Islamic comments, particularly with regards to the struggles of the Iraqi and Afghan peoples against the Western invaders?

Australia’s Prime Minister, John Howard, has very skilfully as good as personally promoted further persecution and discrimination against Islam when he said in response to al-Hilali’s remarks: “What should happen and I’ll say it again, is that the Islamic community has got to take this matter in hand themselves, and if they don’t then there is the risk that people will use their failure to do so against them, however unfairly, and I really am asking the Islamic community to come up to the crease and handle this matter themselves.”[3] Otherwise – what, John Howard?

Monday, October 23, 2006

The headline in today’s UK Telegraph indicates that President Bush and his top generals think they may have found a way out of Iraq that will save them face – they are hinting that they may actually withdraw troops – and one needs to read this to believe it – as punishment for the continued violence.[1]

The Telegraph report said: “…benchmarks would be set covering progress in the Iraqi military, police and economy that if missed would result in the imposition of "penalties" by Washington.” The report went on to say that these “…would include "changes in military strategy", which could mean troop cuts or redeployment within Iraq…”

It seems the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ are now scrambling to find ways out of the Iraq disaster. The UKs Tony Blair is hoping that the Iraqis can take over ‘security’ in the areas currently ‘held’ by the British so that British troops can be withdrawn. Blair is clearly hoping the talks currently being held in London with Iraqi government officials will lead to withdrawal sooner rather than later.[2]

Monday, October 16, 2006

Since the recent failure of the Israelis and the US to provoke war with the Iranians by attacking Lebanon, Israel has had to think again about how they and the Americans can provoke or at least find some excuse for them to justify an attack on Iran before the US midterm elections in order to revive Bush’s rapidly diminishing chances of actually retaining control of Congress. Now, it seems, the right-wing Israel Zionist government thinks it may have come up with an answer.

The Israeli right-wing Zionist propaganda website Debkafile has recently claimed that the Hamas Interior Minister, Said Siyam, had met with his Iranian counterpart, Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi, in Tehran where arrangements were made, so Debkafile reports, “…to transform Hamas’ military wing, the Ezz e-Din al Qassam, into a crack operational arm of the Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, and Gaza into a second Lebanon.”[1] As if to compound this story a recent report in the UK Telegraph states that Hamas is threatening to break the ceasefire it has with the Israelis if the Israelis continue their attacks in the Gaza.[2] Meanwhile, The Jerusalem Post adds fuel to the fire by reporting that, “Hamas is smuggling advanced weaponry including anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles into the Gaza Strip, changing the tactical military picture there, the head of the IDF intelligence directorate's research department told the cabinet on Sunday.”[3]

One need not have too many guesses as to where these weapons are coming from. The finger of blame is being firmly pointed either directly or by inference at Iran.

Already the level of Israeli activity in the Gaza is being drastically raised with some 22 Palestinians, many of them civilians, having been killed in recent days as Israeli aircraft launched missile attacks on Palestinians suspected as being militants. All it would take now is for Hamas to react with some new weapon, real or imagined by Israel’s propaganda machine, for the Israelis to accuse Iran as being directly involved in Palestinian ‘terrorism’ for Israel and the US to justify an attack on Iran.

Monday, October 09, 2006

There’s nothing new in the seemingly recent idea that US interests may be better served by Iraq being split into essentially three separate and autonomous states in the classic divide and rule style reminiscent of colonial days. In April of 2003, just a few weeks after the launch of the invasion of Iraq, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, let the cat out of the bag of US plans for a post-war Iraq when he suggested that a federation modelled on Australia’s system of government could operate in Iraq.[1] Howard must have realised that he had spoken prematurely and out of turn with his suggestion because as far as I am aware he hasn’t spoken of it since and certainly hasn’t claimed the idea as being his own.

Since Howard wouldn’t dare make suggestions off his own bat about how the US should deal with a post-invaded Iraq, especially a suggestion that has such deep ramifications about US foreign policy toward Iraq, one can only assume that Howard was aware of US intentions and plans for Iraq’s ultimate fragmented political future long before it became public knowledge that this maybe what the US has now planned for Iraq. That being the case furthermore, one can assume that this is what the US had planned for Iraq all along which would explain why the US and the coalition of the willing have been seemingly so inept at stopping the ethnic and sectarian violence.

If this indeed is what has happened then one also then needs to ponder to what extent the occupying forces have been ‘inept’ at stopping the violence and how much of the violence was actually provoked by the occupying forces in order to frame a situation whereby a divided Iraq may well seem to be seen as an answer to the problem. It would certainly keep the Israelis happy and, of course, the US would need to hang out in Iraq for a very long time while the new federation of states settled themselves in.

The right-wing liar-supporting mainstream press are really scrapping the bottom of the propaganda barrel with this story. According to a report in Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian, “Al-Qaeda plotted to murder the entire Australian cricket team in their change rooms during last years Ashes tour of Britain…”[1]

This opening line served to suck in the dumb and gullible in Australia by initially mentioning only the Australian team in this Australian newspaper to an audience that Australian Prime Minister John Howard is trying to convince that Australia is specifically a target of Islamic terrorists not because of Australia’s close relationship with the US and Australia’s involvement in the war in Iraq, but because ‘they hate our values’.

Upon reading the rest of the story one finds that the entire fairy tale drifts from mildly humorous to absolutely ludicrous as we are then asked to believe that the whole plan was called off because – and one has to read this to believe that someone could actually write this without cracking a smile – one of the plotters was a cricket fan. And then, just in case the ‘Poms’ (friendly Australian colloquialism for English ex-pats living in Australia) who continue to support the English team didn’t feel left out of this fear-mongering ploy, we learn that the English cricket team, as well as the Australian team, were also to be targets.

This fear-mongering garbage is almost up there with last August’s panic when no aircraft were blown up over the Atlantic which resulted in a totally unprecedented lack of loss of life and this complete lack of loss of life, so we were told, was on an unimaginable scale.[2]

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

The Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has again lied to the Australian people. In an effort to position modern terrorism effecting Australia before Australia’s involvement in the invasion, and the resulting fiasco that is the occupation or Iraq, he has stated that because the Bali bombings happened before the invasion of Iraq, Australia’s involvement could not have been the reason why Australians were targeted at Bali.[1] This is an utter deceit.

The deceit is compounded by the way Howard attempts to reinforce this proposition by suggesting that the attacks on the World Trade Centre in 1993 and the subsequent attacks on the WTC on 9/11 were also proof that ‘terrorists’ were targeting Australia by virtue of Australia being a close ally of the US – before Australia’s involvement in Iraq.

First, while the Bali bombings of October 2002 indeed were before the invasion of Iraq, it was only just. It was well known where Howard, despite his denials, stood with regard to Australia’s forthcoming involvement with the US in Iraq. Certainly all Australians did – at the time there were massive demonstrations in Australia imploring Howard not to allow Australia to become involved.

Secondly, to suggest that Australia in 1993 at the time of the first attack on the WTC was closer as an ally to the US than any other nation around the globe thus rendering us as targets now because we are ‘western’ is also a deceit.

The reality that Howard can’t accept is that his personal alliance with Bush – not just Australia’s alliance with the US – has put Australia firmly on the so-called terrorists’ map. Howard’s suggestion that Australia is targeted simply because we are a ‘western’ nation is a lie.

Howard is also attempting to perpetuate the lie that he only knew what the US intelligence people were telling him about Iraq’s WMDs. He says: “Some of the intelligence agencies that were involved in this assessment were telling us, telling the administration and through them, us and our intelligence agencies, that Iraq in 2003 had weapons of mass destruction.” True, but some of the other intelligence agencies, including some of our own,[2] were telling a different story which Howard chose not to listen to.

The Lying Tyrant Howard can spin it whatever way he wants but when it comes time to write the history of the Howard era he’ll find that historians will soon reveal his dishonesty and deceit .

ENDNOTE[1] AAP, ‘Howard welcomes declassified material’, The Australian, 27 September 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20484551-601,00.html Accessed 27 September 2006.[2] See Andrew Wilkie, Axis of Deceit: The story of the intelligence officer who risked all to tell the truth about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq, (Melbourne: Black Inc., 2004.)

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, has been fed the line from the US and now he now feeds it on to the Australian people, i.e., that the US has offered Iran room to negotiate over the question of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program.[1] Since most clear thinking commentators are aware of the fact that the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), the nuclear energy watchdog organisation that is monitoring Irans nuclear program, has stated that there has been no evidence to suggest that Iran wishes to enrich uranium beyond that which could be used for peaceful power generation, we can be assured that US concerns for Iran’s ‘nuclear program’ is merely a ruse by which a carefully implemented public opinion campaign against Iran can be orchestrated. Downers line is simply part of that orchestration whereby the allies wish to be seen as being ‘reasonable’ and offering ‘every opportunity’ to Iran and then, when Iran insists it’s not doing anything wrong and will continue with its enrichment program for power generation, the allies can then say the Iranians have refused ‘every opportunity’ and are not being ‘reasonable’ – and then attack them.

The reality is that US and allied Special Forces are already operating inside Iran. At a private dinner some weeks ago with three members of Australia’s rural industries, Prime Minister John Howard let it slip that Australian Special Forces were indeed already inside Iran preparing the groundwork for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the impression was that Howard was actually bragging about it in terms of how good Aussie Special Forces are.[2]

What most people are failing to understand is that the stand-off between Iran and the US-Israel has absolutely nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and everything to do with regional hegemony and Israeli security and Zionist expansionism. We’ve already witnessed recent but failed attempts by the US and Israel to draw Iran into the Lebanon conflict. Now the western forces are rallying again to muster public opinion in preparation for an attack on Iran.

It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter simply of when.

ENDNOTES[1] David Nason, ‘Softer stance may allow talks with Iran’, The Australian, 23 September 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20461607-2703,00.html Accessed 24 September 2006.[2] This information was passed anonymously and incidentally to me from a person who did not know me and who had no reason to be dishonest with me and who told me he was an employee of one of the persons that was at this private dinner.

Saturday, September 23, 2006

A rift seems to have developed in relations between Pakistan and the US. Pakistan’s President, General Pervez Musharraf, has claimed that the US threatened to ‘nuke Pakistan into the stone-age’ if it didn’t co-operate with the US in the aftermath of 11 September 2001.[1]

But one needs to ask whether it really was the threat of being ‘nuked into the stone-age’ that brought President Musharraf to heel so quickly after the events of 11 September 2006, or more the ex-gratia payment of $50 million, authorised on 28 September 2001,[2] that ensured that Pakistan was kept on side.

Musharraf is an extremely clever politician who is adept at walking the fine and often tight line between Pakistan’s Islamic world to which most of its peoples belong, and the western world to which Musharraf has allied his nation in the Global War on Terrorism. Money and power are two commodities that seem to reign supreme for Musharraf when it comes to walking that fine tight line.

A survivor of numerous coup attempts, a method Musharraf himself favours to gain power, and assassination attempts, he hangs on to his power as every good dictator does; granting plenty of favours to other powerful people and bribery. Sometimes those granting of favours conflicts with the interests of his western allies but he is always forgiven by them because they know that Musharraf only ever does anything because it is in his interests to do so and keeping on side with his western allies is the only way that Musharraf is able to cling to his power.

It is for this reason that Musharraf has made the remarks about being threatened by the US in the aftermath of 9/11. And it is for this reason that he will get away with making these remarks without upsetting his relationship with the Bush administration too much. Such remarks are designed to keep on side with the Islamic world of Pakistan. Musharraf’s allies in the West know how important this rhetoric is to a leader in his precarious position.

The US could very well ‘nuke Pakistan into the stone-age’ but the US is also very much aware of the fact that Pakistan is the only nuclear armed Islamic nation in the world with a capability to strike back.

I doubt Pakistan was threatened to be nuked back into the stone-age.

I think the $50 million dollars paid to Pakistan, the first no doubt of many such payments, had far more to do with keeping Musharraf on side – right from the beginning. I also think that many of Musharraf’s minions were, and still are, up to their necks in perpetuating the myth of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and the intrigue and subterfuge that became 9/11 – with a lot of help from the US taxpayer.

Monday, September 11, 2006

In his interview yesterday with Tim Russert on the NBC News ‘Meet the Press’ show, Vice-President Dick Cheney gave one of the clearest examples of the definition of classic ‘Chutzpah’ yet. He told his audience that if the US had not removed Saddam Hussein then he, Saddam, “…would be sitting on top of a big pile of cash because he would have $65 and $70 oil.”[1]

Que??!! Is not the reason oil is at $65 and $70 now because of the turmoil that exists in the Middle East as a direct result of removing Saddam Hussein in the first place?

Now that’s what you call “Chutzpah”!

But, of course, the Chutzpah doesn’t end there. There is a certain irony in the fact that as a direct result of ousting Saddam Hussein the only people that are sitting on top of big piles of cash are the big US-owned oil companies and the oil industries service providers like, well, Cheney’s old company Haliburton.

Friday, September 08, 2006

It’s good to see at long last that the mainstream media (MSM) are beginning to publish articles about the so-called ‘conspiracy theories’ that surround the events of 9/11 – even if they are in an attempt to debunk them. It means that if the MSM is going to so much trouble to debunk them then the truth about what really happened that fateful day is finally beginning to emerge into the public domain and that the western governments who have an interest in maintaining the façade of the ‘official version’ of events are becoming worried that their story is coming apart at the seams.

Of course, the present spate of articles in the MSM are designed to reinforce the statements that President Bush recently made when trying to shore up his support for the continued ‘war against terror’.[1]

In one recent article in the UK Telegraph by Michael Shelden one can almost sense the desperation in his narrative as he tries to dissuade readers from believing the claims of Dr. Steven E. Jones, the university physics professor from Utah who is a leading light in the 9/11 Scholars for Truth movement, that the twin towers of the World Trade Center could not have collapsed solely because aircraft had crashed in to them and that, therefore, there must have been some kind of conspiracy involved in order that a secondary cause for the towers collapse could be effected. Shelden doesn’t attempt to debunk Jones’ assertion but, instead, tries to belittle Jones by referring to some of Jones’ other non-related theories about religious characters in Mexican history, etc.[2]

Then there is Alexander Cockburn’s attempt to do a similar job on Dr. David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor.[3] Cockburn in his piece in The Nation attempts to frame Griffin’s synopsis of what happened on 9/11 within the notion that Griffin has a “…devout, almost preposterous belief in American efficiency”, inadvertently inferring that it was American inefficiency that allowed the attacks to happen.[4]

Meanwhile, Abraham H. Foxman of the pro right-wing Zionist Anti-Defamation League writes, predictably, in the Jewish News Weekly of Northern California that conspiracy theories about 9/11 are anti-Semitic. He bases this assertion on the fact that it was reported that many Israeli employees at the WTC did not attend work that day because they had been warned of the possibility of an attack. “This outrageous lie”, Foxman says, “took off like wildfire and became the centerpiece of the conspiracy theory that is accepted by millions of people in the Islamic world, and others around the globe, that it was Israel and the Jews, not al Qaida, that perpetrated the terrorist event of Sept. 11, 2001.”[5] We need, so Foxman seems to think, to know this because not only have millions of people in the Islamic world got a few doubts about the official version of events but now so have millions of people throughout the western world and, indeed, in growing numbers across the US. The latest figures show that over a third of Americans now believe that there is a lot more to the 9/11 story than the official government version would have us believe as the new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll shows.[6]

The governments of the coalition of the willing and their compliant and supportive mainstream media are getting worried. We can expect to see a lot more of these types of articles appearing in the MSM trying desperately to debunk so-called ‘conspiracy theories’ and, of course, the more they try then the more likelihood there is that people that were previously not interested in conspiracy theories and were content with the official version will now be wondering if there isn’t something in these stories after all!

Search This Blog

Followers

About Me

is an Aeronautical Engineer, Historian and general carer of what goes on in the world.
Apart from an earlier career in engineering, Lataan also has a First Class Honours BA degree in History and a PhD in International Politics.
All material on this site is available for use without permission but it would be appreciated if the source is acknowledged.